27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 117 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:16:01 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <328cv4p6hjc8sgjen97f146rktg6if4fse@4ax.com>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>Your phone does indeed have an antenna plug. Here's a $15 antenna
>cable and a $20 roof antenna:
>
>http://www.1800mobiles.com/treo-750755-antenna-adapter.html
>http://www.1800mobiles.com/wilson-301113-external--antenna.html
Use the shortest possible available coax between the adapter and the antenna. At
those frequencies an large amount of the cell phone power goes into warming up the
coax.
Tony
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:22:28 -0700
From: "charlie" <chaniarts@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <gt5enm$fgi$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Mark Smith" <marklsmith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:634979.76888.qm@web65712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com...
> If you have HDTV you can read the lawyer language they added in the
> fine print to say that they do not recommend or condone destruction of
> property blah blah blah....
>
> Mark L. Smith http://smith.freehosting.net
Really? Someone in a town near me was just charged with chainsawing 8 power
poles because he liked to see the sparking at night.
Regards,
Charlie
Phoenix, AZ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:48:13 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.04.28.07.48.12.576675@myrealbox.com>
........
> Whether "spinach" was an allegory for marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco is
> left as an exercise for the reader: suffice to say that I don't think
> anything that ever happened in Hollywood was an accident. Whether it was
> part of a vast conspiracy to promote tobacco use, an attempt to poke fun
> at prohibition, or an inside joke among the animators and producers will
> probably never be known.
And don't even start on those Roger Ramjet "Proton Energy Pills".... ;-)
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:42:33 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <ejrJl.17031$D32.6488@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>
Dave Garland wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Many people in those days looked upon the Bell System as something
>> "evil". Many college students saw it, wrongly, as part of the
>> "Military Industrial Complex"
>
> Why wrongly? Perhaps not the Bell System per se, but certainly their
> corporate overlords. AT&T was in a long tradition of industrial
> giants whose corporate interests were intermingled with the military.
> It wasn't a situation unique to the USA, such informal groupings
> existed earlier in England, France, Japan, and Germany, and probably
> any other capitalist country that was both industrially developed and
> a major military power.
>
> ATT was prime contractor for the DEW Line (R&D done by Bell Labs,
> construction by WE), owned the Sandia Corporation, which oversaw the
> laboratories that did much nuclear weapon development. WE was prime
> contractor for the Nike missile system. They produced communications
> systems for military use. And they certainly were a giant industrial
> complex, whose board and interests that overlapped with other large
> defense contractors. I'd say they fit the description quite well.
>
> Dave
>
DEW was replaced with JCC ROC which are computer controlled points under
the control of what was SAC. I worked on an early one at March AFB, Now
ARB. They also have one under the control of Homeland Security.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:47:12 -0600
From: "Anthony Bellanga" <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200904280747.AA47120151@gonetoearth.com>
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, tlvp wrote:
> Just an uninformed guess, but: perhaps there's a way to exploit the
> self-ring-back to make an unchargeable toll call -- set up
> auto-forwarding to the toll number you wish to call, get the
> self-ring-back number to call you, pick up just when you s'pose the
> auto-forwarded call has gotten answered, and be connected to your
> toll party, with the charges going to the self-ring-back number's
> account?
>
> But what do I know? I've never eaten Cap'n Crunch cereal :-) , so
> there are probably more holes in the theory above than in the little
> Dutch boy's proverbial dike.
Some interesting questions here, but nothing to worry about, since it
doesn't work that way!
"Revertive calls" (i.e., calling the "ring-back" number and then hanging
up waiting for your phone to ring) NEVER forward over if you have any
kind of forwarding set up. The entire purpose of "revertive calls" was
for calling someone on your party-line, as well as doing ringer-tests.
Of course, a customer on a party-line in an ESS or digital office (and
yes, those types of offices can support party-line service, but who has
party-lines these days, even if telco still offers them as a tariffed
service offering) would NEVER be able to have any additional custom
calling features on their account. (Touch-tone service these days would
be about the only "extra" feature on a party-line, and all parties would
be able to use it, since these days, everyone served by the central
office has touch-tone whether they want it or not -- and everyone was
"mainstreamed" to a monthly rate taking into account the previous extra
charge for touch-tone).
But even if you're not on a party-line, an attempt to do a revertive
call (calling ring-back) would NEVER forward over to a forward-to
number you might have otherwise set up. It is a "test" function within
the central office itself, applying ringing to your line regardless.
Even if you have "forward on no answer", a calling to "ring-back" will
continue ringing your phone even after the pre-specified number of rings
before forwarding has expired, until the central office will likely
time-out and drop the "ring-back" attempt (one to two minutes?)
Also, the "ring-back" test function in the central office would not
even have a "billing account"!
And as for "billing" ... the way call-forwarding is SUPPOSED to work
(and any kind of forwarding -- whether all calls forwarded, or forward
on busy and/or no-answer, or forward-out only specific incoming calling
numbers, etc), the line that has actually set-up the forwarding is the
one who will pay for any toll calls that they may have set-up
forwarding to! NOT the calling party! Caller-ID of the calling party is
supposed to be preserved and passed forward all the way to the final
destination, but only for C-ID purposes. For billing, the ANI of the
person who set-up the forwarding is to be used for billing if forwarded
to "something chargeable".
Telco has always said that if you (the person setting up forwarding)
has forwarded to a number that incurs toll charges, then YOU are
responsible for those additional charges, not the original calling
party!
Also regarding forwarding in general, on legitimate incoming calls
(not set-up revertive calls, which won't even forward over), it is NOT
a "three-way calling" function, but a "forwarding" or "auto-transfer"
function. If you have all calls forward set-up, you usually get a
"reminder ring" (aka "ping" ring) when someone has called your line.
You can NOT answer that incoming call when you get that "ping ring".
It is only to remind you that you have set-up "all (incoming) calls
forward" on that line. Telco has also always stated this in Call
Forward instructions! Even if you have "call-forward on no-answer",
if you haven't answered that incoming call in the pre-specified number
of rings, that incoming call will forward over to the pre-specified
forwarded-to number, leaving your voice-loop entirely. It is NOT now
going to be available as a 3-way call for you to answer as well as
having forward-over!
And as for telco not wanting to make wider knowledge of test numbers
available, I agree with someone else who replied that there are limited
test functions in the central office, and if "everyone" was using them,
then it would overload these test functions in the central office. In
some cases, ONLY ONE "ring-back" call can be done at a time, as well as
ONLY ONE "ANAC" auto-number read-back can be done at a time as well.
Yes, in today's era of deregulated customer premises equipment as well
as inside wiring, etc., I would hope that telco would make such test
function equipment, etc. available more so, but they aren't necessarily
going to pay to expand such capabilities! Especially when others not
with the telephone company would be the ones doing such tests!
- a.b.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:39:44 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <MPG.24606ebad37e28159899f7@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <op.us06z2w4wqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net says...
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:19:15 -0400, in response to a post
> by <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>, Bill Horne wrote:
>
> >
> > ***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> > You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
> > such numbers secret?
> >
>
> Just an uninformed guess, but: perhaps there's a way to exploit
> the self-ring-back to make an unchargeable toll call -- set up
> auto-forwarding to the toll number you wish to call, get the
> self-ring-back number to call you, pick up just when you s'pose
> the auto-forwarded call has gotten answered, and be connected
> to your toll party, with the charges going to the self-ring-back
> number's account?
>
> But what do I know? I've never eaten Cap'n Crunch cereal :-) , so
> there are probably more holes in the theory above than in the little
> Dutch boy's proverbial dike.
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
Back when the BBS scene was still active there was one BBS called
PowerCor in East Greenwich, RI. Problem was, if you lived in Pawtucket
you paid toll to access it.
At the time I was living in North Providence, RI and had a 401-353
number which is Providence rate center.
I setup a second line with call forward. Found out it would forward not
only if the line was in use but multiple calls. So that's how the
Pawtucket people could access the BBS without incuring a toll.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Man, are you in trouble now!
The New England Telephone & Telegraph Company Accounting Department
will be in touch to arrange your payment schedule. You may be required
to deposit your first-born in order to prevent termination of your
service.
The NET&TAT (New England Telephone & Telegraph Accounting Trolls)
never give up, never die, and never, ever, forget. How could you not
have known?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:42:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <Xns9BFB6317B9C75Senex@85.214.105.209>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The NET&TAT (New England Telephone & Telegraph Accounting Trolls)
> never give up, never die, and never, ever, forget. How could you
> not have known?
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
Maybe because they keep changing their name? (9X, BA, VZ...)
Many years ago I was involved with administration of a campus system
based on NET Centrex, feeding many key systems. When I got together
a few procedures to reconcile our work orders and their equipment
bills, I noticed that new equipment would be installed and billed,
and often old equipment would be removed without the billing being
stopped. I would calculate the amount we had overpaid (sometimes
over many years) and my bosses would ask for the credit. NET did
not want to pay for more than a few months back, but we insisted.
At a meeting with our NET rep, she asked, "Suppose we found an
instance where we had not been billing you for a service for several
years, would you want to pay for all of that mistake?" I answered,
"Yes, of course, but only if you can prove that the underbilling was
our fault." We never did find any instances of underbilling anyway.
We seemed to win that one, probably because any escalation would
have resulted in bad publicity for NET, and more institutions
checking their bills.
--
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:02:04 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <20090428150058.F377A48155@mailout.easydns.com>
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote,
>...
>Some authors* have suggested that the Justice Dept's anti-trust
>[lawsuit] against the Bell System was motivated by ideological
>views--"big is bad"--rather than hard evidence that it was in the
>public interest to sue them. The authors suggest that mindset was fed
>by several selfish large corporate users who either wanted lower rates
>or a foot in the door of the communications market to skim off the
>cream. [*Alan Stone, Constantine Raymond Kraus, and Alfred W. Duerig,
>whom, IMHO, make many excellent points.]
The antitrust suit went back to 1949, focusing on Western
Electric. In 1956, the Final Judgement took WEco out of commercial
markets, basically making it just Ma Bell's in-house manufacturing
arm. The suit was reopened in the 1970s with a goal of getting Ma to
spin off WEco, but the geniuses in Basking Ridge thought that they
should instead free it up to sell commercial minicomputers,
fantasizing about how good their products were. And they saw the
BOCs as money-losers, again missing the boat.
I do note that your source, C. Ray Kraus, was anything but an
impartial observer. I remember reading his frequent fulminations
when he was alive. To say that he was conservative in matters
telephonic understates the case; he was somewhere to the right of
Attila the Hun. He railed against Carterfone until his death (in
1990, at the age of 90), whining how the telephone network was "one
giant computer" that was broken by allowing "foreign
attachments". The man didn't just drink the proverbial Kool-Aid; he
mixed up the artificial flavoring and grew the ergot in his own
lab. I'm sure the public Internet would have driven him into
paroxysms. His book was titled "The Rape of Ma Bell". Of course
Lisa's posts here often echo Ray's views.
>What is sad about those times is that the Bell System was under strict
>regulation and the way it operated was what was desired by state
>regulators, who wanted, as a matter of major policy, cross
>subsidization.
State regulators still feel that way, alas. The Bells are largely
deregulated now. Under the old rules, they generally pulled the
regulators' strings. Regulatory capture was the rule, not the
exception. It hasn't gotten much better since.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <209dc262-4d0d-4b00-b73b-4187b968a7a0@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 28, 12:23 pm, Fred Goldstein
<fgoldstein.SeeSigSpamb...@wn2.wn.net> wrote:
> The antitrust suit went back to 1949, focusing on Western
> Electric. In 1956, the Final Judgement took WEco out of commercial
> markets, basically making it just Ma Bell's in-house manufacturing
> arm. The suit was reopened in the 1970s with a goal of getting Ma to
> spin off WEco, but the geniuses in Basking Ridge thought that they
> should instead free it up to sell commercial minicomputers,
> fantasizing about how good their products were. And they saw the
> BOCs as money-losers, again missing the boat.
As the above mentioned authors mention, the suit was motivated by
other businesses who wanted to skim the cream of the business. That
is, the old Bell System used rate averaging so that most people paid
the same rate (eg long distance) regardless of the cost or
profitability of a particular segment. Thus, in a busy corridor like
New York to Washington, there were large economies of scale and
profits compared to say between Montanna and North Dakota. The new
businesses wanted in _only_ on the profitable segments, leaving AT&T
stuck with the lousy ones.
The lawsuit was also motivated by a desire to override the regulators
and their policies, again, to benefit a narrow few.
> I do note that your source, C. Ray Kraus, was anything but an
> impartial observer. I remember reading his frequent fulminations
> when he was alive. To say that he was conservative in matters
> telephonic understates the case; he was somewhere to the right of
> Attila the Hun. He railed against Carterfone until his death (in
> 1990, at the age of 90), whining how the telephone network was "one
> giant computer" that was broken by allowing "foreign
> attachments". The man didn't just drink the proverbial Kool-Aid; he
> mixed up the artificial flavoring and grew the ergot in his own
> lab. I'm sure the public Internet would have driven him into
> paroxysms. His book was titled "The Rape of Ma Bell". Of course
> Lisa's posts here often echo Ray's views.
Space does not permit a whole review of the three books, but my own
experiences as a personal and commercial telephone user over the
decades bears them out. I believe their books are well written, well
documented with sources, and an accurate summation of the times. They
do a fine job documenting the extensive service innovations and cost
reductions the Bell System provided until divesture. They also
document new services and cheaper rates the Bell System wanted to
offer BUT was BLOCKED by the government to favor 'competition'.
They make a good case that the Internet as we know it today would've
been available to the public _sooner_ if not for government and
litigation interference.
To be sure, what the Bell System did or wanted to do in 1970 would be
very different today. For instance, the Bell System itself was ready
to get out of renting telephone extensions because the cost of
servicing them was growing high and would soon exceed the revenues.
There is no way anyone can justify the practice of cream skimming.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:36:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <id-dnY1YlJAB0WrUnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <UJGdnWQF1qmExGjUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
Gordon Burditt <gordonb.5oqbq@burditt.org> wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> And all Popeye had to do was "eat" his "spinach" to become strong and
>> powerful. Funny how he used to pour the "spinach" into his gullet as
>> if it were a liquid, and then he would beat up the brute who had tried
>> to take his woman.
>
>Do you think they'd actually allow Popeye on the air if they actually
>told us what "spinach" was? Near as I can tell, it's PCP. Anyone else
>know of something else that generates that much strength that fast?
It's a _cartoon_. The 'laws of reality' don't apply, especially those
regarding the length of time it takes something to happen. *grin*
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>What "spinach" actually represented is open to interpretation, but (at
>least to me) the salient point is that the original character didn't
>depend on it: according to Wikipedia, Popeye originally got his
>strength by rubbing the head of a rare breed of chicken.
>
>It wasn't until Popeye reached Hollywood that the magic elixir
>changed:
FALSE TO FACT. Popeye changed to spinach in the original print comic
strip more than a year before Fleischer Studios did the first cartoons
for Paramount.
>Whether "spinach" was an allegory for marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco
>is left as an excercise for the reader: suffice to say that I don't
>think anything that ever happened in Hollywood was an accident.
>Whether it was part of a vast conspiracy to promote tobacco use, an
>attempt to poke fun at prohibition, or an inside joke amoung the
>animators and producers will probably never be known.
>
<*Sigh*>
Spinach in the Popeye cartoons really was meant to be *spinach*, nothing more,
nothing less.
During the Depression, dietary deficiencies were very _common_, with children
being especially affected. Iron deficiency, in varying degrees, being one of
the most common. Physical manifestations included lack of strength, stamina,
and endurance.
Spinach was a good source of multiple vitamins, and perceived to be an
excellent source of dietary iron (although that claim was, in fact, over-
stated), readily available everywhere, and had the additional attraction
of being *cheap*.
Thus, you had a 'hero' (unlike say, Superman) who got his (super) powers in a
way that was something that any aspiring kid could do, too. Real-world results
weren't as immediate, or as major, as what Popeye experienced, but -- for a
_lot_ of kids -- it =did= "make a difference".
There is fairly solid historical evidence suggesting that the Popeye cartoons
had a noticeable impact on national spinach consumption, _and_ that that,
in turn, led to a measurable reduction in the incidence of related dietary-
deficiency medical problems.
This is, as they say, "old news", and little of that data is available
on-line, primarily due to age.
Note: Popeye dates from an era when Hollywood -- and others in 'prominent'
roles -- still generally believed in a responsibility to do things for the
good of society. The Popeye theatrical cartoons were little more than
contemporary-framed 'morality plays'; they _did_ have a lesson to convey,
namely: "eat your veggies, and you'll grow up healthy and strong" -- or
(phrased more acceptably to the target audience, i.e., kids) "eat the right
stuff and you, too, can triumph over the bad guys".
***** Moderator's Note *****
Aha! Thank you: there's nothing like finding the guy who knows.
May I suggest you amend the Wikipedia article to make the issue more
clear?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: schmerold2@gmail.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <876287d5-1d0a-4861-9493-1e84334b3123@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 27, 4:08 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> In article
<1210e93b-6201-456f-ae14-05033eb5c...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 25, 3:45 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
Qwest turned our 800 number on. No one can tell me why it was
disconnected. Where's ma Bell when you need her.....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: schmerold2@gmail.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <d8e91497-cb6e-41b1-9e2e-b180e86c3699@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 26, 4:45 pm, schmero...@gmail.com wrote:
> New question:
> How do I "force the 800 number back" ?
>
> Answers to questions:
>
> The 800 number is being forwarded to our landline - the ANI
> information is quite interesting, however we have no way to access it.
> Perhaps via a voip provider would provide this information at little
> additional cost. Need to check into this.
>
> All other systems are working properly, the landline works in and out.
>
> I don't have access to the plant test number, until now we dialed the
> number and it was answered by my staff, in other words, "it just
> worked"
>
> All bills have been paid, I discussed this with billing last night,
> they say I have an $0.82 open credit on the account - so, I am
> overpaid.
>
> I spoke with three Qwest people on Friday, each stated it was
> disconnected, no one could say why it was disconnected.
>
> Only reason I fear this is due to the wild wild west nature of the
> phone business today. used to be, you would call ATT, they would take
> care of you, if they violated your rights you could go to the PUC.
> Today there are so many carriers and governing authorities, I have no
> idea if Qwest will be in business next week, if they fail, who do I
> call to secure my numbers etc. Call me paranoid, but I don't like it.
>
> I don't know how other 800 services work, in my case Qwest simply
> forwards all calls to a local land line.
>
> Our 800 number isn't frequently used, therefore we didn't know it was
> out of service.
>
> Comment regarding "There must ... half the contributors want to go to
> war with the other half!"
> That is the way of this group - just look at the top post vs bottom
> post issue. Finally got so bad that the list software forces bottom
> posting.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> A couple of added questions from me:
>
> I'm still not clear on the issue you're writing about: you've asked
> how to "force" an 800 number back to you, but your other remarks infer
> that the line was disconnected. What's the current status of your
> 800 number? Is some other company using it?
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
> P.S. Actually, there isn't any list software: it's just me. _I_ force
> bottom posting for the sake of clarity and readability.
>
What I mean is if we didn't get our 800# back, what is the procedure
for forcing someone to give it back to us. In this case all is well
that ends well, but what if six months had passed and Qwest had no
reason to cancel our service but did so anyway. Well, I'll want it
back and I suspect you'd want your number back.
So the question is what is procedure for getting the 800# back -
surely there must be some higher authority - similar to ICANN and so
documented here: www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:49:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <gt7mjs$fms$1@news.albasani.net>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>T wrote:
>>I used to have Network Plus for my 800 service. They delivered ANI data
>>as CLID data. They followed the proper thinking, since I was paying for
>>the call I sure as hell deserved to know who was calling.
>And, the calling party "sure as hell" deserves to know you will be
>seeing his number, even though he has elected CLID blocking.
I don't agree that the calling party has now, or has ever, had the right
to ANI blocking when calling a toll-free number. If he wants to use CLID
blocking, then let him call the company's local number, or choose to do
business with a company that doesn't use toll-free numbers.
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (13 messages)
******************************